Thursday, 20 April 2017

'Once More Onto The Beach ...'

And so it came to pass that victory over Gillingham
and Bury’s failure to win at Bolton meant that the Addicks survived in the
third flight with two games to spare. This much we now know. The rest, the
important stuff (personally I don’t care whether or not we set a new post-War/lifetime
low for the final placing; what matters a great deal more is that in my time
we’ve never spent more than three consecutive seasons in this division), has to
remain speculation as the chances of any Australian purchase in the near future
at least have clearly diminished. Until there is more on when and to whom
Duchatelet is going to sell, on what basis, and whether Karl Robinson and all
the squad will form part of a new owner’s plans we are back to guessing. At
least it keeps up the Mail’s record of never having printed anything true.

The regime’s expensive PR team either failed to
prevent another gaffe or fell into line with Duchateletworld with the ‘anonymous
club spokesman’ apparently stating that “the rumours and speculation regarding
the sale of Charlton Athletic are unhelpful”. You just put your head in your
hands and laugh. Surely it doesn’t need to be said that if they are unhelpful
and not true, they could have been – and should have been – ended, which was easily
done; if they are unhelpful but true, well tough. The Australian Football
Consortium Investment Opportunity statement at the time said that the company
is in “final negotiations with the current owner of the club”. Either we are/were that club or we are not. A club which cared at least a little about a major
stakeholder, the fans, might want to clear that up. Now that our league status
for next season is assured, there can no longer be anything ‘unhelpful’ about
not giving supporters/stakeholders more information. But of course there will
be silence. They will keep on treating supporters with contempt to the bitter
end while claiming to want dialogue.

We’ve all seen that the AFC statement has now been
altered to remove the wording about being in ‘final negotiations’. Presumably
either AFC and its advisors were being misleading about how far down the line
they were, or they were in final negotiations and these talks either broke down
or are on ice while AFC raises the money it is looking for (whether or not the
sum they are raising, AUD55m, would be the total in AFC coffers remains to be
seen). For now at least, AFC falls into the category of potentially interested
parties rather than owners-in-waiting (of the club if not The Valley).

I had written something along the lines of there
being plenty that supporters can do to protect the best interests of our club
while we wait for concrete developments. But the Trust quite rightly stepped in
and rattled off a letter to AFC which pretty much fitted the bill. No matter, I’ve
tried to update the thoughts.

Just why any company would want to pay £20m for the
club - a loss-making outfit which needs further investment to get promoted and
would then require a higher operating loss to compete in the higher division as
a platform for any further investment to try for the Premiership – is beyond
me. No matter. You can see the rationale – for a purchaser and for Duchatelet –
of separating out The Valley, by making acquiring an English football team more
affordable for the former and by allowing the latter to retain an asset which
can presumably generate an annual profit while ridding himself of the ongoing
losses of running the football club. But it is clear that the other party in
any transaction, the fans, have legitimate concerns, especially as the interests
and intentions of our deluded owner need to be watched; he needs to be muzzled
and for supporters to ensure that the muzzle remains firmly in place.

It is quite possible that the obstacles to developing
The Valley involving the sale of private property will ensure no desecration of
our spiritual home, whatever Duchatelet has in mind. If he does really just
want to improve The Valley, with the promise of increased revenues for him,
fair enough. We just need safeguards. The first I’d assume would come in the
length of a lease for the football club to use the stadium. A 50-99-year lease
would be reassuring; anything less than 20 and you would question why. And to
be acceptable to supporters I’d suggest the lease would need to include
guarantees of no reduction in crowd capacity.

Any material unwanted development of The Valley would
of course require planning permission and it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of the
Trust and other groups to get the message across that anyone on Greenwich council
voting in favour of development opposed by the supporters can expect to be
ousted at the ballot box at the first available opportunity. Shouldn’t need a
history book to remind them what happened last time around.

Also, a full AFC document for potential investors would
have to outline both the means to achieve returns for investors (which have
been outlined in brief: basically get the club acquired into the Premiership
and then take the dosh) and the risk factors involved. The latter would have to
include the possibility that under AFC’s ownership Charlton don’t get into the
Premiership within the envisaged time period (that they could even get
relegated from where we are), that more funds will need to be raised to achieve
objectives than currently planned for (which would involve at least dilution of
the eventual return), and other issues. And here’s where we come in.

If I was a potential investor in AFC I would want
to know why the target club has been underperforming. Answer: it was bought by
a deluded, rude and arrogant old man who had some strategies which anyone with
an understanding of football could have said would not work – and they haven’t
– and who managed to further alienate the fan base by installing incompetent
staff whose mistakes and lies compounded problems, while all the way through regularly
insulting said supporters. OK, fair enough, sweep him away and AFC should
succeed with a modicum of common sense and especially with their superior
Australian approach to sport.

However, I’d also want to know, as a potential AFC
investor, how will the fans respond if this crazed owner retains ownership of the
stadium and messes with it? Is it a potential risk factor that the fans,
instead of getting fully behind the new set-up and helping it to outperform,
will feel obliged to oppose ‘development’ of The Valley in ways which would
seriously reduce the chances of AFC achieving its goals and returns for
investors? Well of course it is. Any sensible investor would be considering the
possibility and would want any deal involving Duchatelet retaining ownership of
the stadium to involve material constraints on what he may do with the stadium,
up to and including no development being able to proceed if the supporters
oppose it. This is after all just an investor protecting his or her interests;
not to do so would be irresponsible.

Finally I do have to thank our hub Forever
Charlton, for all the good work in general and for giving me a laugh this
morning. There is a headline link to a piece entitled ‘EFL teams of the year
revealed’. What on earth is the relevance for Charlton? We already have our
well-deserved gong, for having English football’s worst owner (although Orient,
Coventry and Blackpool surely ran us close). Ideally if there is a
supporters-run Player of the Year dinner Roland would be invited along to
receive his award. If by then he is no longer the owner of our club, so much
the better.

Barring actual takeover news that could be it for
the season for me. I’m off to Lyon ahead of the weekend and, having not done my
homework, expect to be back too late to help with CARD-organised protests for
the final game. I will be there in spirit. I do hope to take in a Lyon Duchere
game while away. Some disappointing home results of late have seen them slip
down the table, to eighth. But they are still only two points off third with
five games to go; and I think the top three are automatically promoted (for
sure the first two are, the third spot is a different colour in the site I use
but Wikipedia says three go up). So all still to play for with Duchere away at
mid-table Beziers on Friday evening. Just checked for the following round and
the game I should get to see. I kid you not, Duchere will be at home to Dunkerque.
Seems rather apt for a citizen of a country planning to try to run away from the
rest of Europe (assuming of course that France doesn’t do something equally
stupid with a vote of its own). So perhaps for me, rather than flying pigs it will be a case of 'once more onto the
beach, dear friends ...’

These CARD protests (not that they've held one for ages before last weekend) are becoming annoying for a very small percentage of Charlton supporters. (Proved by the recent CAST opinion poll). But never mind as it's making a big difference and it will succeed eventually IMO. Several past and present manager/s have stated that what these people are doing is not upsetting to them and shouldn't upset the players. On the other hand the players themselves and the captain don't tend to comment on such matters and get on with playing, so we don't know what they actually think!

There you are I've fixed for you, with the truth, evidence in numerous past press interviews (if you care to check), even from KR the current manager.

Do you have any sources supporting your opinion other than KM RD and Sue Parks?

Thanks for the comments people. For me the only prospect of having what we all desire - a packed Valley united behind the team, giving us all a positive matchday experience - can only be possible with new owners.

Thanks for the National update Anon. And with the Bard misquote I was trying for a pun, with the beaches of Dunkirk. As for the Addick/Addict, I apologise. It should of course always be Addick. When I set up the blog many moons ago I thought I would be clever (never works) and pay homage to a Charlton fanzine, Addickted. Since then I've never been able to change the title formally back to what it should be.

My preferred quote from the Bard is Henry V Act 3 scene 2 after the once more into the breach speech.Boy speaking "Would I were in an alehouse in London I would give all my fame for a pot of ale and safety" That just about sums up my feelings about this season etc. I wish I was down the pub

I hope there will not be any more protests in our ground. I am fed up with seeing people wearing black and white scarfs at our matches. Clearly under KR we are heading in the right direction and I believe he has the full backing of the owner, and we should all get behind KR and the team. Many mistakes have been made but I think, although he will not admit this, that Roland knows this too. By appointing KR and his back up staff, paying all the bills this is backing our club.

Can't agree with you Anon. Roland may privately admit to mistakes, Meire usually has to front up to acknowledge mistakes as he hides. But admitting mistakes does not mean you learn from them. Meire is still in the job, Duchatelet has not apologised for his regular rants and insults. To suggest that under Robinson we are clearly heading in the right direction is stretching a point to say the least; all you can say after a few better results and survival in the third division, and ahead of yet another intended revamp of the squad, is that he might keep his job if we get new owners.

There will be more protests, until Duchatelet sells, and I'll be back at it next season, wearing a black and white scarf and a CARD shirt - if by then Duchatelet has not sold.